The historical context in which John Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government (1689) is pivotal to understanding the intentions he had in writing it. Indeed, to simply study his political theory as an abstract doctrine divorced from its surrounding would lay one vulnerable to mis-interpreting his work. It is only upon consideration of Locke’s immediate political context that one can start to comprehend what his book was responding to. The conventional interpretation that Locke wrote his magnum opus as a defence of the “Whig triumph” in the Glorious Revolution of 1689, I think, has been successfully discredited by Peter Laslett (Laslett, Introduction to Two Treatises of Government, 1988). However, out of the rubble of this intellectual demolition, a broad based consensus view is still yet to emerge. The one area of solid agreement amongst scholars is that Locke wrote the majority of his Second Treatise between the years of 1679–1683. It is as to when, specifically, within this date range Locke started and finished his tract that a divergence in view takes place. Laslett was the first to argue in 1960 that Locke’s Second Treatise was a direct intervention in the debate concerning the exclusionary crisis of 1679–1681. Consequently, it was assumed that Locke wrote the majority of his Second Treatise within this two year window. Richard Ashcraft, on the other hand, flatly denies that Locke wrote any of the Second Treatise in 1679. Instead, he posits that due to the radical nature of the language Locke uses, it was only after Charles II’s decision to dissolve the Oxford parliament in march 1681 that Locke began writing his tract. His purpose in writing was to provide ideological backing to a select group of “whig” politicians who were plotting against the king. To Ashcraft, Locke was against the backdrop of the Ryehouse plot, not the exclusionary crisis. Thus, it is evident from the date ranges given, 1679–81 and 1681–83, that two very different political circumstances existed in very near proximity to one another. This is why it matters when Locke wrote the Second Treatise. A difference of one single year can render an entire interpretive framework useless. What I wish to suggest, however, is that Locke’s work could very plausibly have spanned both time periods. Indeed, it most likely did due to its composite nature. This would rid the debate of such a binary temporal distinction and instead allow for a view that Locke wrote his Second Treatise as a response to both political contexts; not just one.
In 1960 Laslett struck a blow to the conventional interpretation that Locke’s Second Treatise was written in response to the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Writing an entire decade earlier, Locke was engaging with a topic that had been neglected entirely in the “constitutional discussion” of the Second Treatise; the exclusion crisis (Laslett, Introduction to Two Treatises of Government, 1988, p.54). The exclusion crisis centered on the constitutional attempt by a group of politicians to prevent Charles II’s brother, James Duke of York, from inheriting the English throne. James’ refusal to take the oath prescribed by the new Test Act in 1673 and the increasingly pro-French stance of Charles and his court caused great unease among many politicians in both houses of parliament. There was a genuine fear that an embracement of “catholic modernity” and french-styled absolutism would pose a grave threat to the English parliament, the rule of law, and the general security of the nation (Steven Pincus, 1688, 2009, p.118). The man at the core of this oppositional grouping was the 1st Earl of Shaftesbury. As Ashcraft has stressed, the position of Locke in Shaftesbury’s household is inextricably linked to the intentions he had in writing his Second Treatise (Ashcraft: Revolutionary politics and Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, 1980, p.433). Described as his “assistant pen,” large clues about Locke’s book can be ascertained from the political movement of Shaftesbury from 1679 until his death in 1683.
One of the major political episodes of this period began with the introduction of the Exclusion Bill on the 15th of may 1679. This move set the groundwork for a long series of disputes between the king and parliament. Successive attempts were made to pass this bill, yet, each one led Charles to exercise his royal prerogative to dissolve parliament. Clearly, Locke had this scenario in his mind when writing chapters XIII and XIV of his Second Treatise. In Chapter XIII, for instance, he writes about the figure of the “Supreme Executive Power” and later in Chapter XIV he attributes to this “Supreme Executive Power” the “power of calling Parliaments in England” (Laslett: Second Treatise, 1988, p.369 and p.379). This was not only an evident allusion to the English monarchy, but also specifically to the Exclusionary Crisis of 1679–81. Commenting on the relationship between the two powers of government, Locke states that the “executive power” is always “subordinate and accountable” to the Legislative (Laslett: Second Treatise, 1988, p.368). Paragraph 155 and 156 of Chapter XIII presses this matter down even more radical lines. Although the “Executive Power” has the force to assemble and dissolve the Legislative, it cannot at any time “hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the Original Constitution, or the publick Exigencies require it” (Laslett: Second Treatise, 1988, p.370) To hinder the meeting of parliament in such a situation would be tantamount, Locke says, to using “force upon the people without authority” (Laslett: Second Treatise, 1988, p.370). It is in this setting that Locke actually draws on the resistance theory of 16th century theorists, like George Buchanon (1506–1582), by suggesting that the use of force without authority “always puts him that uses it into a state of war” with his people and consequently, “renders him liable to be treated accordingly” (Laslett: Second Treatise, 1988, p.371). It was a warning shot to the king. Charles was exercising his prerogative in a manner that was not congenial to the public good. If he continued to act as if he were superior to the legislative, then he would eventually “unty the Knot” between himself and the english people; allowing for legitimate resistance to take place against his rule (Laslett: Second Treatise, 1988, p.416).
It is difficult to not connect these passages to the exclusionary crisis. Yet, whilst they may refer to the exclusionary crisis this does not necessarily mean that they were necessarily written before the dissolution of the Oxford parliament in march 1681. Therefore, what evidence does Laslett put forward to give credence to the view that Locke did in fact start writing in 1679?
It seems that the main piece of evidence lies in Locke’s citations of Sir Robert Filmer. All references to Filmer’s tracts, bar one, come from his 1680 edition. Bought on the 22nd of January, this collection of essays included Patriarcha; the text that Locke’s First Treatise addresses (Laslett: ‘Introduction’ to Two Treatises of Government, 1988, p.57). In paragraph 22 Lock states that “Freedom then is not what Sir R.F tells us, O.A. 55 (224)” (p.283/4). Laslett has shown that it was only the 1679 edition that Locke could have been referring to given that it was in this edition that Filmer’s Observations upon Aristotle’s Politiques touching Forms of Government appears on page 55 (Laslett: ‘Introduction’ to Two Treatises of Government, 1988, p.58). However, as Milton points out, Locke could easily have had the 1679 edition in Oxford and his 1680 edition in London and referred to each depending on where he was writing at a given time. The mere fact that a book is from 1679 does not mean that it was necessarily read and written about in that year. Alongside the contention between Ashcraft and Laslett on Locke’s formatting of his Tablet, it is clear that no solid evidence can be brought forward to definitively say whether he did or did not start writing in 1679. But I would argue that the exclusionary crisis occupied not only the political activity of Shaftesbury but also the mental capacities of Locke. Shaftesbury would have needed ideological justification for his course of action and his “assistant pen” would have served as a primary candidate in supplying him with such writing. Consequently, it would be incredibly surprising if half a year went by without much thinking or writing being done on the major political crisis that confronted not only Shaftesbury but also English society at that time.
The interpretation that Locke began writing his Second Treatise in the winter 1679 is, of course, highly contentious. Since Laslett’s publication in 1960, historians have tended to push back Locke’s starting date toward the latter half of 1681. The implications of such a view are profound. Indeed, the intentions underpinning why Locke chose to sit down and write his tract are significantly different from the ones that Laslett suggests. Far from being an intervention in the exclusion debate, Locke was writing his Second Treatise as a defence of the revolutionary action that was soon to manifest itself through the Ryehouse plot (Ashcraft: Revolutionary politics and Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, 1980, p.431) When seen in this light, the Second Treatise was certainly not the progenitor of that strand of liberalism that appeared to tie the politics of the exclusionary crisis to the later 1689 Glorious Revolution. Instead, it was a radical tract; a call to arms. Moreover, Ashcraft concurs with Laslett that the Second Treatise was not simply an abstract thought-project of Locke’s. He too emphasised the relationship between Locke and Shaftesbury and the pivotal role it played in the formation of nearly all of earlier Locke’s political and economic writings. Why would the writing of the Second Treatise be any different? Yet, whilst both writers agree that the Second Treatise was written for “Shaftesbury’s purposes,” a divergence takes place as to what these purposes actually were (Laslett: ‘Introduction’ to Two Treatises of Government, 1988, p.125). Therefore, to grasp Locke’s intentions behind writing the Second Treatise we will now turn to Shaftesbury’s political movements following Charles’ dissolution of the Oxford parliament in march of 1681.
It is evident that Shaftesbury’s political intentions underwent a significant transformation after the dissolution of the Oxford parliament. A far more radical position replaced the failed constitutional approach taken during the years of 1679–1681. Ashcraft argues
that it was in this context of sheer urgency and revolutionary sentiment that Locke wrote his Second Treatise. To evidence this claim Ashcraft states that Locke’s language in the Second Treatise is far too radical for the date range that Laslett suggests. Why would Locke be speaking in revolutionary terms when his political master was engaging with the king in a constitutional manner? (Ashcraft: Revolutionary politics and Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, 1980, p.446) The contents of the Second Treatise is just too out of touch with “Shaftesbury’s purposes.”
However, Ashcraft ought to be taken to account on this point. There is no reason why the Second Treatise cannot be seen as an ‘anticipatory’ text. The tract, of course, was directed at Charles II but not only in a negative sense. I think Locke was appealing to him; imploring him to “yield to what everybody desired” (Ashcraft: Revolutionary politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, 1980 p.438). In paragraph 200 of Chapter 18 Locke writes about that “learned king” who “well understood the notions of things” (p.400) That “learned king” was undoubtedly James I. Locke goes on to state that a king “makes the laws the bounds of his power” whilst a tyrant simply gives way to “his own will and appetite” (p.400). Indeed, where “law ends tyranny begins” and where the king acts contrary to the law, he “ceases to be magistrate” and may be “opposed, as any other man who invaded by force the right of another” (p.401) This is radical and the really revolutionary language of Locke begins after paragraph 200 in chapter XVIII and continues into chapter XIX. Why is this important?
It is important because Locke is not saying that all kings are tyrants. A king, like James I, can act in a way that promotes the common good. If James I did then so too could Charles. It is evident that after 1679 Charles had started to promote his own personal will above that of his people’s. With the decade of the 1640s still in lifetime memory, Locke was simply legitimising a likely course of overt resistance that was soon to take place. Significant sections of the Second Treatise, therefore, could have been written in anticipation of a revolutionary agenda without leading whigs actually employing one. Furthermore, this would reinforce Laslett’s idea that Locke reached “paragraph number 22, possibly 57 and even number 236” before he changed his mind at some point in 1680 to write the First Treatise. (Laslett, Introduction to Two Treatises of Government, 1988 p.59)
This argument, however, would render Ashcraft’s interpretation useless. What I wish to suggest, therefore, is that Locke wrote his Second Treatise across both time periods. In doing so, his tract can be situated in both political contexts offered by Laslett and Ashcraft. Ashcraft states that “if Locke wrote the Second Treatise in 1679 then he did not write it for Shaftesbury’s purposes, since neither Shaftesbury nor anyone else had organised themselves to undertake a revolution in that year” (Ashcraft: Revolutionary politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, 1980 p.436). But no historian has actually ever claimed that Locke wrote it all in 1679. It is generally acknowledged to be a composite work, completed over a longer time span unlike many of his polemical writings. Consequently, different sections of the book addressed different political contexts.
Laslett suggests that chapters II-IV and possibly XIV were written in 1679. This would make sense since none of the statements in these chapters are clearly divorced from the actions of the politicians Locke was “supposedly advising” (John Milton: Dating Locke’s Second Treatise p.436). If anything certain passages, like paragraph 200, in chapter XIV link well to Shaftesbury’s concern with Charles’ prorogation of parliament. Far from being out of place, they provide an ideological backing to the exact course of policy being taken by Shaftesbury and his supporters in the winter of 1679. Likely written in 1680–81, chapters XI and XIII concern the role of the legislative and executive are again engaging with the exclusion debate. We have already established the tempered use of radical language up to paragraph 202 and, instead, emphasised Locke’s invocation of that “learned king” whom he hoped Charles would start to emulate. It is chapters XVI-XIX that belong to a different political context. Most likely written after the dissolution of the Oxford parliament, these chapters do have a far more radical tone in comparison to earlier passages in the book. It is in this section that Locke states that “Revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs” (p.415)
Perhaps one, or even, two prorogations of parliament were allowed. After all, “great mistakes in the ruling part…will be born by the people, without mutiny or humour,” but if a “long train of Abuses, Prevarications, and Artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the People,” they have a right to resist those innovators who are guilty of altering the original constitution (Laslett: Second Treatise, 1988, p.415/416). The moment at which Locke assumed a far more revolutionary language game marked the period in time where instances of monarchical abuse transitioned into a general design of tyranny.
